The danger in defining cyber attacks as terrorist acts is that there is the implication of violence. The Palestenian Authority and Hamas rhetoric has been just this – they call building in the settlements a violent act and then justify their response with another form of a violent act. It seems unthinkable, but they get away with it. If cyber attacks are intended to destroy and damage, on a large scale, I suppose it is a form of terrorism, but we should call it cyber terrorism, not to justify a relationship with violent acts.

Under some circumstances, yes. It depends on the effect or damage caused. If the intent and result is to disrupt or destroy systems on a massive scale, then yes. The mere act of hacking and say, publishing credit card details, is a violation of laws, a crime, but falls short of terrorist act.

According to Merriam-Webster:
Definition of terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Definition of terror: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Does cyber-warfare meet the definition? Maybe, but it probably depends on the nature of the attack. If you disable infrastructure with the intent to disrupt daily economic activity or to incapacitate the systems making modern life possible, the answer is probably “yes”. If you steal credit card and personal information for publication, the act probably falls short of terrorism. Also, we have to be careful about the context and nature of the perpetrators. When they (the bad guys) do it to us, it is terrorism. When we (the good guys) do it to them, it is a legitimate act of self-defense. We have to be very careful about the nuances here, especially Honest Reporting, which has made specialty of identifying factual reporting versus propaganda spin.

Terrorism relies on using violence or other tactics to instigate fear, aimed most often at a civilian population.

Personally, I feel you can’t compare a bombing in a crowded shopping centre with the act of hacking into a computer system.

Perhaps this just highlights the sad state of affairs that is our ever more intimate connection with technology; that we now see the invasion of the realm of software as an equal to the invasion of territory, or the murder of civilians.

Yes, cyber attacks are damaging. Yes they CAN spread fear, but I would argue that the levels of fear that they create are simply incomparable to real terrorism.

You can repair the damage from a hack. You can’t bring back the dead. Let’s not debase the word ‘terrorism’.

Well, Mark, I am sure that cyber attacks and cyber spying in general have, can and will continue to kill people – directly and indirectly. The Internet and certain Internet powers is just another weapon in the Third World War. We definitely need to be on our guard as the world moves from natural – physical living to a life based entirely on Technology.

What kind of attack are we talking about? Cyber-attacks usually don’t kill innocent people, and as long as it does not, it’s a form of free speach / protest / vandalism — depending on the goal and the result. Let’s not sell the term “terrorism” cheap.
–Mark, Massachusetts

Simply put, cyber attacks are a new form of warfare and can be used by terrorists. Cyber attacks have the potential to redefine warfare. Peace can be warfare, the Taliban for instance might be waging warfare by negotiation just like Hanoi once did. Are we (USA) at war with the Taliban? Were we at war with the North Vietnamese? War is increasingly a blurred concept and our inability to wage war on potential terrorists is being redfined in terms that are not traditionally applicable to warfare. The liberal radical approach for resolution of these sorts of conflicts is to wage welfare. President Bush declared war on “global terrorism”, President Obama has attempted to redirect the focus on Islamist terrorists. Cyber attacks are more likely to come out of China or a home grown group intent on advocating some eco-globalist cause rather than a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The question would be easier to address if it were expanded to include can cyber attacks, which are generally “non-violent”, be considered acts of war?

Re cyber attacks and the Internet in General, I have already preached to my Church that the Third World War is already in progress via the Internet. Most internet users are unaware of the height and depth of the seriousness of what is happening “online”. People, by the millions are being ‘caught’ in the many different Cyber-Internet TRAPS. It’s a world-wide “hide & seek’ game which has and will continue to have serious consequences. I advise people to “stick to the ‘basics’ when online”. Remember – in more ways than ‘one’, there’s someone watching you!

SHOULD CYBER ATTACKS ON COMPUTER SYSTEMS BE CONSIDERED A FORM OF TERRORISM?
YOU NEED TO RE-FRAME QUESTION.
YOU TRAPPED YOURSELF by the way you ask the Question.
Judge by Results=ACTIONS not opinions and first Check if your not doing the SAME to others.
Check First for your own Double standard. AND IF, Your house is clean then you check on Outside influence. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. COKE DRINK 9spoons of Sugar has terrorized more People created a Diabetes Pandemic 100 years of Coke sales and World says nothing.
CHECK OUT YOUR OWN HOUSE FIRST.
I`m A OLD JEW but I will not support double standard.